dave_SLC said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Pushing back on dave_SLC here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Closing this out. What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and worth saying anyway.
dave_SLC said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Dr.CardioMD said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.